Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-25 Thread Eric Covener
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:26 AM, André Warnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric Covener wrote: > [...] >> >> IMO The 403 is returned in a path where errors imply a high likelyhood >> of someone actively trying to fool the server -- I don't think a 403 >> is too inappropriate here. >> > First, no,

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-25 Thread André Warnier
Eric Covener wrote: [...] IMO The 403 is returned in a path where errors imply a high likelyhood of someone actively trying to fool the server -- I don't think a 403 is too inappropriate here. First, no, there was no tomfoolery implicated in copying the file. Just take an existing Apache logo

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-25 Thread Eric Covener
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 8:23 AM, André Warnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In that respect, yes you should. The client should not have to know on > which platform the server is running, and send a fundamentally different URL > depending. You don't have to know the platform. You have to know the

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-25 Thread André Warnier
Eric Covener wrote: On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:00 AM, #V[Á]lentín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In any case, thanks for bringing this problem up. I have been using Apache for a very long time, and I am also not an native English-speaker. I can't imagine that I have not encountered the same issue

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-25 Thread Eric Covener
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:00 AM, #V[Á]lentín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In any case, thanks for bringing this problem up. I have been using >> Apache for a very long time, and I am also not an native English-speaker. I >> can't imagine that I have not encountered the same issue before, so I c

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-25 Thread #V[Á]lentín
Thanks you for trying to revive this case in Apache bugzilla. 2008/9/25 André Warnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hi. > > I searched the Apache bugzilla database and came up with a similar issue > posted a while ago (bug # 18805). I posted an additional comment there, > describing the issue as we see

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-25 Thread André Warnier
Hi. I searched the Apache bugzilla database and came up with a similar issue posted a while ago (bug # 18805). I posted an additional comment there, describing the issue as we see it, in the hope that it will revive the case. I will also try to start another thread here dedicated to such URL

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-24 Thread André Warnier
#V[Á]lentín wrote: I still think that there is an Apache 2.x + Windows related problem... I definitely agree. The browser should not have to "guess" the character encoding that the server uses in its filesystem. And 403 is the wrong response, even if the filename encoding does not match. b

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-24 Thread #V[Á]lentín
I still think that there is an Apache 2.x + Windows related problem... because, as I said before, with Apache 1.3 + Windows I had no problems: With Apache 1.3, if I try to get a file called /í.JPG I could do it asking > for /%ED.JPG to the server, and this works perfectly. > and *the file is exac

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-24 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
André Warnier wrote: > > I created a file called "valentín.jpg" in my document root and tried to > access it with Firefox, and I get a 403 forbidden response. All filenames on unix are whatever arbitrary characters happen to relate to those names. So for files named in utf-8, they must be %escap

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-24 Thread #V[Á]lentín
Not a good idea in my case, because they are dynamic content that could have characters like á, é, ì... I did not apply restrictions to this because in Linux it works fine, and the important think is that the application works in Linux (Windows is only the system I use to work... not the final-serv

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-24 Thread Eric Covener
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:40 PM, #V[Á]lentín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So... maybe there is no solution? If it's only a few URLs, you might be able to use mod_rewrite to map from the singlebyte to the utf-8. -- Eric Covener [EMAIL PROTECTED] --

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-24 Thread #V[Á]lentín
So... maybe there is no solution? :( Fuck. Well... one more reason to migrate to Linux definitely :S . 2008/9/24 Eric Covener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 3:42 PM, André Warnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I created a file called "valentín.jpg" in my document root and tried to

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-24 Thread Eric Covener
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 3:42 PM, André Warnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I created a file called "valentín.jpg" in my document root and tried to > access it with Firefox, and I get a 403 forbidden response. > > GET http://zaphod/valent%EDn.jpg --> 403 Forbidden On modern windows, I don't think

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-24 Thread André Warnier
Me too. So at least there is nothing special to your system. I finished installing Apache 2.2.9 on my Windows XP SP2 (German) laptop. I created a file called "valentín.jpg" in my document root and tried to access it with Firefox, and I get a 403 forbidden response. I also get the same behavio

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-24 Thread #V[Á]lentín
I have just installed an Apache 2.2.9 and it has exactly the same behavior... 2008/9/24 #V[Á]lentín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "Accept-Charset", "Accept-Language", and "Content-Type" are the same in all > cases. Moreover, I think that is no related to the encoding supported by the > server, is about t

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-24 Thread #V[Á]lentín
"Accept-Charset", "Accept-Language", and "Content-Type" are the same in all cases. Moreover, I think that is no related to the encoding supported by the server, is about the encoding, languages and type of files supported -or preferred- by the browser. An example: Host: localhost User-Agent: Mozi

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-23 Thread André Warnier
If you can, try using Firefox, with the "LiveHttpHeaders" add-on. That is an add-on that will - if you ask it - capture the outgoing HTTP request and all its headers, and the incoming response with all its headers. In this case, I am curious about headers like "Accept-Charset", "Accept-Language"

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-23 Thread #V[Á]lentín
So I got it ;-) I have nothing called mod_security in my httpd.conf, and I don't find anything related to filesystem encoding or something like that... :S 2008/9/23 Eric Covener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:50 AM, #V[Á]lentín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Err... I really don'

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-23 Thread Eric Covener
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:50 AM, #V[Á]lentín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Err... I really don't understand the sentence "Nothing like mod_security in > the picture?"... but, well, I have nothing called mod_security in my > httpd.conf, so I suppose that the answer is no. Sorry, I meant "in the pict

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-23 Thread #V[Á]lentín
Err... I really don't understand the sentence "Nothing like mod_security *in the picture*?"... but, well, I have nothing called mod_security in my httpd.conf, so I suppose that the answer is no. 2008/9/23 Eric Covener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:35 AM, #V[Á]lentín <[EMAIL PROT

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-23 Thread Eric Covener
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:35 AM, #V[Á]lentín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, you haven't added confusion. I understand you and I agree with you. > > I have checked the Apache error log and it shows nothing. And the Apache > access log shows this: > > 127.0.0.1 - - [23/Sep/2008:15:35:30 +0200] "GET

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-23 Thread #V[Á]lentín
No, you haven't added confusion. I understand you and I agree with you. I have checked the Apache error log and it shows nothing. And the Apache access log shows this: 127.0.0.1 - - [23/Sep/2008:15:35:30 +0200] "GET /%ED.JPG HTTP/1.1" 403 291 I think that this is a problem of misconfiguration, b

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-23 Thread André Warnier
#V[Á]lentín wrote: Hola Válentin. I can't tell you what the solution is, but from the example you provide, it looks as if Apache is accepting URLs encoded as UTF-8 (Unicode), but not URLs encoded as iso-8859-1 (latin-1). This is not supposed to be the standard, so there must be some setting so

[EMAIL PROTECTED] Differences between different Apaches in file requests

2008-09-23 Thread #V[Á]lentín
Hi! This is my first time posting in a mailing list -and I hope not to do something wrong... If I do something wrong, please tell me-. I have just upgraded my Apache 1.3 to Apache 2.0 (In Windows XP) and I have found an estrange problem. With Apache 1.3, if I try to get a file called /í.JPG I cou